USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

So the question becomes, is the military exempt from its equivalent to
CFR Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.111(b):

§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.


The answer will be interesting. Given the military's role in
intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those operations
without violating that regulation.

Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
believe, the FAA or the airman?


Close Encounters

F-16/PILATUS INCIDENT: AIR FORCE SAYS NO CLOSER THAN 600 FEET
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197689)
The U.S. Air Force says that an F-16 came no closer than 600 feet
to a Pilatus PC-12 [piloted by Patrick McCall*] it intercepted
while flying VFR in the Gladden MOA near Phoenix last month.

An investigation by our sister publication, Aviation Safety,
scheduled to appear in the May issue, reveals that the Air Force’s
account of the intercept contrasts with McCall’s report. Major
Miki Gilloon, Luke Air Force Base’s public information officer,
told Aviation Safety that the F-16’s radar, head-up display and
HSD display tapes showed that the F-16 approached the PC-12 on a
parallel or divergent heading and got no closer than 600 feet.

She also said the F-16 did not counter the PC-12’s TCAS evasive
maneuvers but approached to visually identify it “in order to
contact the civilian pilot and educate him about the risks of
transiting an active MOA.” The F-16’s data tapes aren’t releasable
to the general public, according to Gilloon. However, the
investigation results will be available under the Freedom of
Information Act on the Luke Air Force Base web site
http://www.luke.af.mil/library/foia.asp.

The incident occurred on March 21 when the PC-12, flying VFR at
16,500 feet on a westerly heading through the MOA, transited
airspace in which four F-16s were conducting a two-on-two air
combat exercise. The training exercise was halted and three of the
F-16s orbited in holds while the lead aircraft conducted “a
properly executed standard maneuver such as he might do to gain a
visual contact with his flight leader or an aerial refueling
tanker,” Gilloon said “This was a controlled maneuver to ensure
that neither aircraft was placed in any danger.” She said the F-16
was “fully within Air Force rules” to conduct the intercept.

Military controllers alerted the four-ship flight to the presence
of the PC-12, but neither they nor the F-16s were aware of its
identity. “The civilian traffic was identified by the military
controlling agency as stranger traffic, possibly military. The
civil aircraft entered the MOA near our local military entry point
at the altitude and airspeed comparable to an F-16 and without a
VFR IFF squawk,” Gilloon said.

The FAA says that the PC-12 was not receiving traffic advisories
from Albuquerque Center, which owns the local airspace, although
McCall told us he was receiving flight following. Once the PC-12
was identified, the F-16 flight raised its tactical floor to
20,000 feet and resumed its training.

When asked about FAR 91.111, which prohibits unplanned formation
flight, Major Gilloon said “Our ongoing investigation has revealed
no indication whatsoever that the F-16 pilot violated any existing
military practices or procedures for operating military aircraft
in a MOA.” While the Aeronautical Information Manual notes that
military aircraft are exempt from some FARs, it’s unclear—at least
to us—if 91.111 is among them. However, the Air Force considers
500 feet of separation “well clear,” while the civil definition of
formation flight is ambiguous.

Both the Air Force and the FAA are continuing their investigation
into the incident. McCall has filed a near miss report with FAA,
but Gilloon said “it is not USAF policy to file complaints against
civilian aircraft legally operating in a MOA.” For more in
Aviation Safety’s May report, see www.aviationsafety.com. The
article will appear on the site next week.


http://ftwtexas.com/index.php?module...WS_MAN_ITEMS=8




http://www.aviationbull.com/2008/apr...void-moas-long
According to AvWeb, McCall claims he had flight following while
flying through that MOA. Either he must be mistaken or he was
ignoring it because ATC is constantly watching MOA operations and
is very good about letting military and civilian pilots know about
traffic conflicts. If McCall had been on an IFR flight plan or
using flight following, he would have known that there was an F-16
closing on his position, but long before that he could have made
his intentions known to ATC and could have coordinated his flight
through the MOA with a minimal impact on the training activities
taking place.



http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/a...80409f-16.html
We have been in frequent contact with both the FAA and the
military in regard to these incidents, and they are being taken
very seriously at the highest levels,” said Pete Lehmann, AOPA
manager of air traffic services. “Everyone involved agrees that we
must work together to find ways to safely share airspace and
prevent similar incidents in the future.” ...



http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/u-28.htm
Military
# U-28A Specifications
# U-28A Pictures

U-28A

The U-28A utility aircraft provides intra-theater support for
special operations forces. The U-28A is the Air Force variant of
the Pilatus PC-12 and was selected for its versatile performance
characteristics and ability to operate from short and unimproved
runway surfaces. The U-28A is also certified to land on dirt and
grass strips. The aircraft is equipped with weather radar and a
suite of advanced communications and navigation gear. This
single-engine utility aircraft has a crew of two, but can be flown
by one pilot. ...



* http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/....aspx?x=108826
Patrick Anthony McCall
This member is active and may practice law in California
Undergraduate School California St Univ Long Beach; CA
Law School Western State Univ; CA
Legal Specialist Family Law (State Bar of California)
6/6/1983 Admitted to The State Bar of California

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/92868-...xperience.html



https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airm...0045&certNum=1
Certificates
1 of 1
DOI: 6/19/2004
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE


http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...umbertxt=121PH
N121PH
Aircraft Description

Serial Number 186 Type Registration Co-Owner
Manufacturer Name PILATUS Certificate Issue Date 02/24/2005
Model PC-12/45 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine
Type Engine Turbo-Prop
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50054266
MFR Year 1997 Fractional Owner NO
Other Owner Names:
CONNEALY LEIGH ERIN
Temporary Certificate
Certificate Number T051133 Issue Date 02/24/2005
Expiration Date 03/26/2005

http://www.healthywealthyandwiseshow.com/Connealy.htm
Leigh Erin Connealy, MD, MPH - Nationally prominent Physician
appearing Mondays on Healthy, Wealthy and Wise Health Talk heard
each Weekday on XM Satellite Radio, Ch 170 from 1-2 pm Pacific/4-5
pm Eastern...

Dr. Connealy received her Masters in Public Health from The
University of Texas in Austin, followed by her medical degree from
the University of Chicago, with postgraduate training at
Harbor/UCLA Medical Center. From mentors and education she formed
her concept of "New Medicine" that led to the formation in 1992 of
the South Coast Medical Center for New Medicine located in Tustin
California. Dr. Connealy's continues studies in her other areas
of expertise including Homeopathy, Herbal Medicine, Acupuncture,
Anti-Aging Medicine and various additional Alternative Therapies.

http://www.perfectlyhealthy.net/



On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:17:45 GMT I wrote in
:


Here's an interesting subject:

FLYING INTO MOAs: THE MILITARY PERSPECTIVE
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080404&kw=AVwebAudio)
Monday's podcast
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast2008...ollowUpPodcast) with
a California pilot who was intercepted and shadowed

(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._197487-1.html)
by an F-16 in a military operating area (MOA) ignited a firestorm
of debate on our blog, the AVweb Insider

(http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A...7 505-1.html).
Lt. Col Fred Clifton, a retired F-16 pilot who now instructs at
the Air Force's weapons school at Nellis Air Force Base in Las
Vegas, joined the debate from the military pilot's perspective.
AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Clifton about why it's important
that civilian pilots be aware of and avoid active MOAs.

Plus, the original story and podcast about Pilatus pilot Patrick
McCall's brush with an F-16 generated several listener comments
that we'll share.

Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-04-04.mp3) to
listen. (10.6 MB, 11:35)

Before I comment, let me assure you that I always contact FSS to learn
the status of any MOAs along my planned route of flight. I always
either avoid hot MOAs or coordinate transit with the controlling
agency. I believe this is what a prudent pilot should do.

However, in the case in point it would seem that the F-16's
interception of the Pilatus may constitute a violation of CFR Title
14, Part 91, Section 91.111:


§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.


While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
believe, the FAA or the airman?


Well if the FAA has a tape and the pilot doesn't I'd go with the FAA.

As far as 91.111 goes, again the AF has a tape that we must seems to
show that neither paragraph (a) or (b) were violated.

Larry Dighera writes:

The answer will be interesting. Given the military's role in
intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those operations
without violating that regulation.

They are not exempt when on peacetime missions.

Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
believe, the FAA or the airman?

This is why voice and data recorders in small aircraft might not be a bad
idea.

An investigation by our sister publication, Aviation Safety,
scheduled to appear in the May issue, reveals that the Air Force’s
account of the intercept contrasts with McCall’s report. Major
Miki Gilloon, Luke Air Force Base’s public information officer,
told Aviation Safety that the F-16’s radar, head-up display and
HSD display tapes showed that the F-16 approached the PC-12 on a
parallel or divergent heading and got no closer than 600 feet.

Is 600 feet supposed to be reassuring? That's 1.7 seconds of separation at
190 knots.

She also said the F-16 did not counter the PC-12’s TCAS evasive
maneuvers but approached to visually identify it “in order to
contact the civilian pilot and educate him about the risks of
transiting an active MOA.�

Someone needs to educate the military pilot about the risks of threatening
civilian air traffic.

The incident occurred on March 21 when the PC-12, flying VFR at
16,500 feet on a westerly heading through the MOA, transited
airspace in which four F-16s were conducting a two-on-two air
combat exercise. The training exercise was halted and three of the
F-16s orbited in holds while the lead aircraft conducted “a
properly executed standard maneuver such as he might do to gain a
visual contact with his flight leader or an aerial refueling
tanker,� Gilloon said “This was a controlled maneuver to ensure
that neither aircraft was placed in any danger.� She said the F-16
was “fully within Air Force rules� to conduct the intercept.

Air Force rules don't apply in a MOA in peacetime. The Air Force has to
follow the same FARs as everyone else. The "intercept" counts as formation
flying.

When asked about FAR 91.111, which prohibits unplanned formation
flight, Major Gilloon said “Our ongoing investigation has revealed
no indication whatsoever that the F-16 pilot violated any existing
military practices or procedures for operating military aircraft
in a MOA.�

The aircraft are subject to the FARs, not just military practices.

Patrick Anthony McCall

I see lots of information on the civilian pilot, but nothing on the military
pilot. Why is that?

The military needs to keep in mind that it serves the civilian population, and
not the other way around. The pilot that intercepted this civilian aircraft
needs to find a new career, one that doesn't involve being in a cockpit.

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

As far as 91.111 goes, again the AF has a tape that we must seems to
show that neither paragraph (a) or (b) were violated.

Has the AF released this tape?

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:13:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
believe, the FAA or the airman?


Well if the FAA has a tape and the pilot doesn't I'd go with the FAA.


I haven't yet seen mention of an FAA tape. The Pilatus pilot is an
attorney, so you know he wouldn't lie. :-)

As far as 91.111 goes, again the AF has a tape that we must seems to
show that neither paragraph (a) or (b) were violated.

If the Air Force is anything like the Orange County, California
sheriff's department, the tape may be meaningless:


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
Apr 13, 10:30 AM EDT

Report: OC sheriff's staff hindered probe of fatal jail beating

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- Former Orange County Sheriff Michael
Carona and some of his employees reportedly hindered a special
grand jury's investigation into a 2006 fatal jail beating.

Carona refused to answer any questions from the grand jury, the
Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

No criminal charges against any sheriff's personnel came about
from the probe. However, acting Sheriff Jack Anderson suspended
five employees last week after the release of the grand jury
transcripts.

Among those suspended was Deputy Kevin Taylor, who is accused of
watching television and sending text messages in a nearby guard
station as inmates beat John Chamberlain for up to 50 minutes at
the Theo Lacy jail on Oct. 5, 2006.

One inmate said Taylor told them Chamberlain was a child molester.
Rather, 41-year-old Chamberlain was being held on suspicion of
possessing child pornography.

Also suspended was Special Officer Phillip Le, who was on duty
with Taylor during the attack. Le told the grand jury that to
refresh his memory about the incident, he asked to review's
Taylor's report rather than review his own statements, the Times
reported.

-- Le also testified that he intentionally recorded over the first
nearly 10 minutes of a video used to document the scene after
Chamberlain was found, the Times reported. Le explained that he
realized the tape was running out and recorded over the beginning.
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I haven't yet seen mention of an FAA tape. The Pilatus pilot is an
attorney, so you know he wouldn't lie. :-)


All ATC communications are recorded.

On Apr 21, 9:00*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
So the question becomes, is the military exempt from its equivalent to
CFR Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.111(b):

* * § 91.111 * Operating near other aircraft.

* * (a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
* * as to create a collision hazard.

* * (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
* * by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
* * formation.

The answer will be interesting. *Given the military's role in
intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those operations
without violating that regulation.

In domestic airspace they are not exempt. Sadly, this entire situation
could have been avoided if the F-16 pilot had turned on his radio. He
choose to use intemidation rather than simply speak with the
controller working the area.
Those of us that live in the West part of the US understand avoiding
hot MOAs is impossible, the string of MOAs and restricted airspace is
larger that Eastern states. The solution is to coordinate with ATC
(which is what the civilian pilots did in this case). Sadly, the F-16
pilot did not.
However, we've already seen that even if a figher pilot busts into
class B airspace and runs down a C-182, killing all on board, the
military will not take any action.
-Robert

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:26:55 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I haven't yet seen mention of an FAA tape. The Pilatus pilot is an
attorney, so you know he wouldn't lie. :-)


All ATC communications are recorded.


The recordings are retained for 15 days, if I'm not mistaken. So the
recording in question may or may not still exist depending on when the
near-miss was filed, and how long it took the appropriate authority to
process it and obtain a copy of any tapes.

"Larry Dither" wrote in message
...

The recordings are retained for 15 days, if I'm not mistaken.


Tapes are normally retained for 45 days.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry Dighera writes:

The answer will be interesting. Given the military's role in
intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those
operations without violating that regulation.

They are not exempt when on peacetime missions.

Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was
not receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating
that he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you
going to believe, the FAA or the airman?

This is why voice and data recorders in small aircraft might not be a
bad idea.

An investigation by our sister publication, Aviation Safety,
scheduled to appear in the May issue, reveals that the Air
Force’s account of the intercept contrasts with McCall’s
report. Major Miki Gilloon, Luke Air Force Base’s public
information officer, told Aviation Safety that the F-16’s
radar, head-up display and HSD display tapes showed that the F-16
approached the PC-12 on a parallel or divergent heading and got
no closer than 600 feet.

Is 600 feet supposed to be reassuring? That's 1.7 seconds of
separation at 190 knots.

She also said the F-16 did not counter the PC-12’s TCAS evasive
maneuvers but approached to visually identify it “in order to
contact the civilian pilot and educate him about the risks of
transiting an active MOA.�

Someone needs to educate the military pilot about the risks of
threatening civilian air traffic.

The incident occurred on March 21 when the PC-12, flying VFR at
16,500 feet on a westerly heading through the MOA, transited
airspace in which four F-16s were conducting a two-on-two air
combat exercise. The training exercise was halted and three of
the F-16s orbited in holds while the lead aircraft conducted “a
properly executed standard maneuver such as he might do to gain a
visual contact with his flight leader or an aerial refueling
tanker,� Gilloon said “This was a controlled maneuver to
ensure that neither aircraft was placed in any danger.� She
said the F-16 was “fully within Air Force rules� to conduct
the intercept.

Air Force rules don't apply in a MOA in peacetime. The Air Force has
to follow the same FARs as everyone else. The "intercept" counts as
formation flying.

When asked about FAR 91.111, which prohibits unplanned formation
flight, Major Gilloon said “Our ongoing investigation has
revealed no indication whatsoever that the F-16 pilot violated
any existing military practices or procedures for operating
military aircraft in a MOA.�

The aircraft are subject to the FARs, not just military practices.

Patrick Anthony McCall

I see lots of information on the civilian pilot, but nothing on the
military pilot. Why is that?


What is it to you? You don't fly and you never will.


Bertie